Do All American Diplomats Have the Same Quality?

National, occupational and ideological solidarities efface individual differences. An example of this would be the latest statement by Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs for the Department of State Philip J. Crowley that said “[O]ur diplomats provide candid accounts of conversations, their analysis of what’s happening in particular countries.” Crowley made this statement during a press meeting that was hosted by the Foreign Press Center in New York.

One journalist asked him the following question: “Today, Turkish prime minister said this, and in his quote: ‘We have talked with the U.S. Administration about this. They have apologized. But we don’t find that sufficient and he may take legal actions against some diplomats.’ My first question is: Will you be — is this, in your consideration, that you are going to take any kind of legal actions on some of the cables that accuses high administration officials, like in Turkey?”

Crowley continued with the following statement as an answer for the question: “Our diplomats are posted around the world, so are the diplomats of many, many countries. They engage with other governments, they engage with private citizens and they report back to capitals. And those reports are — we believe they’re most effective when they’re candid, when they’re frank, when they’re direct, when they help provide insight into the activities within a country and they inform our policies and our actions.”

Are They All the Same?

It is normal at first sight that the assistant secretary would defend the staff of the Department of State. When it comes to occupational solidarity, it is assumed that all diplomats, military officers, doctors and professionals have the same qualities and qualifications. In such statements, there are no differences between prejudiced diplomats who believe in every heard gossip and send it to the agency and the diplomats who can distinguish the truth and reality from gossip.

Don’t we see the reflections of these kinds of solidarities in our society too? During the constitution referendum, for example, didn’t the media representatives of those who said “no” put all naysayers into the same cup?

Didn’t those who appeared and said “I am a white Turk” know that white has different tones and there are whites who are obsessive, foul mouthed and slanderers?

When looking at foreign politics, don’t we hear various viewpoints starting with “In any case, Americans … ” that end blaming America even for inconvenient weather conditions? Americans are diverse too. As the historian Arnold Toynbee said, “In a country as big as the United States, you can find fifty examples of anything.”*

As a matter of fact, the documents known as the “WikiLeaks cables” revealed that not every American diplomat has the same quality. In a country like America, the center of pragmatism, it is impossible for the Department of State not to handle these cables as a test for those diplomats.

The fact that those documents in secret folders went public changed the nature of the very documents. The owners of prejudiced, malicious and false cables that were written about various countries and administrations may not be assigned to those countries anymore.

In fact, this is a normal kind of test. After an extraordinary leak, both the documents and those who wrote them were exposed.

After this point, following a policy based on those would be a behavior as wrong as defending those who wrote them.

We saw this defense in the statement by the Assistant Secretary of the Department of State. We unfortunately see WikiLeaks-based policy in CHP leader Kilicdaroglu’s statements.

Let’s see if Kilicdaroglu will end up mentioning Putin in his foreign policy speeches as an outcome of WikiLeaks-based policy process.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified.